Yeah I read that, they said either the curse of Cain or the curse of Ham. Don't say I agree that beating slaves is condoned in the OT. It certainly happens in Egypt with the Israelites, but I don't think it's in the law.

I was at a wedding over the summer and the mother of an old friend who was there came up to me and started to tell me how she agrees with Glenn Beck about how we should give unconditional support to Israel against the Muslim threat (she is a very conservative southern baptist).

I lost it a little bit and told her how awful it was to call the entire Muslim world a "threat." Then she had a look of horror on her face when I said I disagreed with how Israel is handling its military responses.

Its very sad that people can't look at 2 sides, too many folks are either drastically one way or the other.

The United States is cutting funding to the U.N. education and science agency UNESCO after the agency voted to accept a Palestinian bid for full membership, the U.S. State Department said Monday.

"Today's vote by the member states of UNESCO to admit Palestine as member is regrettable, premature and undermines our shared goal of a comprehensive just and lasing peace in the Middle East.," said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

"The United States will refrain from making contributions to UNESCO," she said.

The United States was going to make a $60 million payment in November, and will now not do so, she said.

"This week, the Russell Tribunal on Palestine will consider the question of whether Israel's practices in the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT) constitute the crime of apartheid within the meaning of the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. This Convention, which has been incorporated into the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, is not confined to apartheid in South Africa. Instead it criminalises, under international law, practices that resemble apartheid.

The Russell Tribunal was initiated in the 1960s by the philosopher Bertrand Russell to examine war crimes committed during the Vietnam War. It has now been revived to consider Israel's violations of international law. It is not a judicial tribunal, but a tribunal comprising reputable jurors from different countries, that seeks to examine whether Israel has violated international criminal law and should be held accountable.

In essence, the Russell Tribunal is a court of international public opinion. It will hear evidence in Cape Town on the scope of the 1973 Apartheid Convention, on apartheid as practiced in South Africa, on Israeli practices in the OPT, particularly the West Bank, and on the question whether these practices so closely resemble those of apartheid as to bring them within the prohibitions of the 1973 Apartheid Convention. The Israeli government has been invited to testify before the tribunal, but, at this stage, has not replied to the invitation. Most of the evidence will inevitably, therefore, be critical of Israel.

Israel cannot be held accountable for its actions by any international tribunal as it refuses to accept the jurisdiction of either the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court. The Russell Tribunal seeks to remedy this weakness in the international system of justice by providing for accountability by a court of international opinion. It does not seek to obstruct the peace process. On the contrary, it wishes to promote it. But there can be no peace without justice. This is a basic principle that Richard Goldstone, who has written an op-ed criticising the Russell Tribunal (Israel and the Apartheid Slander, New York Times, October 31, 2011), has devoted much his life to, as prosecutor before the Yugoslavia Tribunal.

Is it true to say, as Richard Goldstone has argued, that there is no basis for likening Israel's occupation of the OPT to that of apartheid? Is it true, as he argues, that such suggestions are "pernicious" and "inaccurate"? Or is there substance in these suggestions?

Of course, the regimes of apartheid and occupation are different. Apartheid South Africa was a state that practiced discrimination against its own people. It sought to fragment the country into white South Africa and black Bantustans. Its security laws were used to brutally suppress opposition to apartheid. Israel, on the other hand, is an occupying power that controls a foreign territory and its people under a regime recognised by international law - belligerent occupation.

However, in practice, there is little difference. Both regimes were/are characterised by discrimination, repression and territorial fragmentation (that is, land seizures).

Israel discriminates against Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in favour of half a million Israeli settlers. Its restrictions on freedom of movement, manifested in countless humiliating checkpoints, resemble the "pass laws" of apartheid. Its destruction of Palestinian homes resemble the destruction of homes belonging to blacks under apartheid's Group Areas Act. The confiscation of Palestinian farms under the pretext of building a security wall brings back similar memories. And so on. Indeed, Israel has gone beyond apartheid South Africa in constructing separate (and unequal) roads for Palestinians and settlers.

Apartheid's security police practiced torture on a large scale. So do the Israeli security forces. There were many political prisoners on Robben Island but there are more Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli jails.

Apartheid South Africa seized the land of blacks for whites. Israel has seized the land of Palestinians for half a million settlers and for the purposes of constructing a security wall within Palestinian territory - both of which are contrary to international law.

Most South Africans who visit the West Bank are struck by the similarities between apartheid and Israel's practices there. There is sufficient evidence for the Russell Tribunal to conduct a legitimate enquiry into the question whether Israel violates the prohibition of apartheid found in the 1973 Apartheid Convention and the Rome Statute."

"The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, demanded on Sunday the removal of the Israeli occupation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, considering that the continuing of the Israeli occupation blocks the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, the Maan News Agency reported Sunday afternoon."

Probably because no one gives a shit... the world can say whatever the hell they want, but everybody knows the ZioNazis are staying put*. The will NEVER* remove the settlements... heck, they are making more as we speak/type.

*Note: that can all change if the US demands the Israelis to remove the settlements, but again, the world can say whatever the hell they want, but everybody knows that no US President (for a long long time in the future) would dare ask the Israelis to remove the settlements.

^I know that has a lot to do with political alliances etc. but it also has a lot to do with all the evangelicals in the U.S. who think that if Israel isn't strong that it signals the end of the world. They think we are doing "gods work" by being a firm Israeli ally and toeing the line that Israel can do no wrong. I don't know if the elected officials feel this way, but to stay in power, they have to placate the sheep. So until the US becomes less religious we will continue to support Israel.

It's way weirder than that. They actively desire a war over Israel because it'll signal the Second Coming. It's not about supporting Israel just to be friends with the chosen people, it's about prepping for the War with the AntiChrist.

"It's way weirder than that. They actively desire a war over Israel because it'll signal the Second Coming. It's not about supporting Israel just to be friends with the chosen people, it's about prepping for the War with the AntiChrist."

I don't know if leaders actually believe this, but I know that a lot of people do. Go to any rural diner in North or South Carolina, and you're bound to find someone that is ultra-Zionist, and believes that the final battle between God and Satan will occur in Israel, probably when the temple is rebuilt or some shit.

I don't think people smart enough and crafty enough to get to the top can actually believe this shit. It's all a tool for manipulating the common folk.

For every nuthatch politician who supports Israel for eschatological reasons there's at least a dozen who do it because:

1) There's a lot more pro-Israel lobby money than their is pro-Palestine lobby money.2) Simplistic "Muslims keep attacking us and Israel, so we must be on the same side as Israel" thinking.3) Simplistic "Israel's a democracy, we're a democracy, so we must be on the same side" thinking.4) The sad catch-22 of Middle Eastern politics. Israel probably shows restraint in order to keep getting money and political backing from us. The other countries in the region also show restraint, both to get money and because they don't think they can beat a US-backed Israel. So all the animosity keeps simmering just below boiling point, and a lot of it splashes on us. But if we stop backing Israel we risk letting things boil over completely. If they're not trying to maintain our support, Israel loses a big motivation not to go completely apeshit. The Arab countries lose a big reason not to go completely apeshit. So maybe they all go apeshit. That's no good. We gain Israel as an enemy, and it's by no means certain that we gain the Arabs as friends. Memories are long in that part of the world. So withdrawal of support for Israel risks lighting the regional powder keg and making sure that everybody hates us.

"It's way weirder than that. They actively desire a war over Israel because it'll signal the Second Coming. It's not about supporting Israel just to be friends with the chosen people, it's about prepping for the War with the AntiChrist."

It's even weirder that that. Support for Israel guarantees conflict in the region. Conflict in the Middle East secures our empire's presence in the region, and we can topple governments and replace them with pro-corporate puppets who allow American and Western business (oil) interests to pillage and plunder.

The whole Gulf War of the 90s was to test the waters to see if we could position our military in the Middle East and install democracy capitalism rather than let a resource-rich section of the world fall under Soviet influence.

There's too much money to be made denying Middle Eastern countries from their sovereign right to self determination, yo. The Evangelical/Jewish religious alliance is just icing on the cake.

We could completely leave the Middle East tomorrow, and every news station in America would be drumming up the war campaign against Hugo Chavez and those crazy South Americans as a threat to our way of living.

^^^^those posters are completely inaccurate....Israel doesn't pay people to move in anywhere, and in recent years have been driving Jewish settlers OUT of the territories with armed force.

And non-Jews are able to come into Israel just as easily as Jews. There is a higher population percentage of Muslims in Israel than there is Jews in America. Only 75% of Israel is Jewish (according to 2011 census)

Or anti-Israel militants are really good at launching their attacks from areas filled with innocent civilians and children knowing that by endangering their own people during the counter-strike they make their enemy look worse.

I love American Zionists because they're full of hilarious, outright lies and contradictions that Israeli conservatives/settlers don't even bother with. You have a bunch of fussy, PC values that you have to twist things around into satisfying; they're quite comfortable with the reality of the situation (brutal, violent takeover) because they think they deserve it. They say as much.

"Or anti-Israel militants are really good at launching their attacks from areas filled with innocent civilians and children knowing that by endangering their own people during the counter-strike they make their enemy look worse."

Quote :

"So Israel is allowed to shoot at the militants but they aren't allowed to shoot back?"

No, seriously. It's implied that only one side is allowed to shoot at the other side? When the US fights someone, I might not like it when the other side retaliates but to say they're not allowed to is asinine. Please explain to me whatever I'm missing.

"So withdrawal of support for Israel risks lighting the regional powder keg and making sure that everybody hates us."

everyone over there already hates us.

Quote :

"The whole Gulf War of the 90s was to test the waters to see if we could position our military in the Middle East and install democracy capitalism rather than let a resource-rich section of the world fall under Soviet influence."

How would there have been Soviet influence in 1991 when the USSR had effectively been crumbling since 1989?

Quote :

"So Israel is allowed to shoot at the militants but they aren't allowed to shoot back?"

Actually, the UN says the exact opposite. Do you not remember the shitstorm that errupted when Israel tried to get militants to stop firing rockets at populated cities?

Are they supposed to let the rockets come flying in and do nothing about it?

If Palestinian freedom fighters cared so much about the future for their children they would stop launching missiles from schools, hospitals, and churches.

I don't want anyone on either side dyeing over land that no one has any real claim to, there's no reason this war has to continue beyond personal grudges. Both sides need to educate towards a peaceful restoration but it can't happen if this is how both sides are going to continue to respond to each other.